Even now, there are still some folks on here who seem unaware of the actual details of a case they have an opinion on. I figured it might be worth listing the facts/events/etc. as we know them.

In general, here is the evidence we have:

GZ:

Wannabe cop. Insurance underwriter, college student. Calls law enforcement frequently. Neighborhood frequently broken into. Tonight on a person deemed suspicious. Hx. of assaulting someone when he thought it was righteous (2001, the grabbing of the plainclothes cop, for which he was given diversion), possible hx. of domestic abuse (2005, but reports are tit-for-tat, so I'm tempted to discount them entirely). Judge ruled incidents were "run of the mill". He was also accused of molestation by a family member, but evidence for that is scanty, very much not conclusive (which means either way). Taking criminal justice classes, teachers claimed he was familiar with self-defense concepts. Relevant specific history of speaking out against the beating of an african-american homeless man, calling the behavior of the police involved "disgusting", occurred 2 years prior to incident. Lived in neighborhood around 3 years.

TM:

Wannabe thug. High school student. Was in process of attempts to obtain both drugs and guns, texts on phone about same as well as about street fighting (haven't been able to find details on that, however, so the character of the texts is unknown). Suspended from school for drug use, disciplined for possessing a screwdriver and women's jewelry (reported by some as stolen goods and burglary tools). Disciplined for truancy. Lived in neighborhood approximately 1 week.

Both had cell phones, only one called the police, however, he did so prior to any altercation.

Witnesses contradictory to a certain extent, best way to reconcile is for there to be scuffle. TM on top at least at one point, GZ possible on top, unknown order or extent.

Only physical evidence demonstrates TM hitting GZ with fists, concrete. TM showed no signs of assault, only signs on fists of striking and of gunshot.

Someone called for help for 42 seconds. Contradictory declarations as to who, could have been either one.

Low amounts of THC in TMs system, unlikely to have directly contributed to any possible violence, points to general drug use, ignoring of law.

Gunshot was from no more than 18 inches away, and all ballistics indicate shoot was during a struggle.

GZ called the cops 46 times previously about suspicious behavior and breakins in the neighborhood. Despite this, no previous evidence of him "taking the law into his own hands" for those incidents has come up. To my knowledge, there was no kind of escalation or indication that he did anything wrong in those previous calls, though I believe he complained in some of them.

GZ claims he was heading back to his car, and only got out to give precise location and see if he could see the person he deemed suspicious since he had lost sight of him.

TM likely stopped or doubled back based on testimony regarding phone calls (but it should be noted that if he thought he was being followed, he may not have wanted to show where he lived. It should also be noted that, just as had GZ not gotten out of his car the altercation would likely not have happened, had TM gone into his house it likely would not have happened.)

Testimony indicates TM started verbal confrontation. Does not necessarily speak to final physical altercation, but speaks to: no active "chase" at time of altercation, GZ not initiating all aspects of event.

Cops/Prosecutors initially declined to press charges. After public outry, charges pressed for Murder 2 with lesser included charge of manslaughter.

0:00:00 PM - At an unverified time, Trayvon Martin walks from the home where he is staying to a nearby 7-Eleven to buy snacks.

6:24:18 PM " As shown by a store CCTV, Martin purchases a bag of Skittles and an AriZona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail (often described in media and at protests as AriZona iced tea.)(Some reports that those items might be commonly used in mixing with illicit substances irrelevant)

6:54 " 7:12 " Martin has an 18-minute cell phone call with a girl reported to be his girlfriend. The call gets disconnected.

7:09:34 " 7:13:41 " George Zimmerman calls the Sanford Police Department (SPD) from his truck; total time of the call is 4 minutes 7 seconds.

7:11:33 " During that call, Zimmerman tells the police dispatcher that Trayvon Martin is running.

7:11:59 " In reply to the dispatcher's question, "Are you following him?" Zimmerman responds with, "Yes." Dispatcher: "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman: "OK."

(My next post will be a timestamped transcript of this call)

7:12:00 " 7:12:59 " The girl calls Martin again at some point during this minute.

7:16:11 " First 911 call from witness about a fight, calls for help heard.

7:16:55 " Gunshot heard on 911 call.

(A comment from me: 40-some-odd seconds of calling for help. That there are no witnesses to the final moments is an indication of the "not going to look" mentality)

7:17 " The first officer on the scene, Officer T. Smith arrives by squad car at Retreat View.

(Particularly sad that they arrived when they did. If only sooner)

7:17:40+ " Officer Smith arrives at the crime scene.

7:19:07 " Photo taken of Zimmerman's head injuries by a civilian bystander.[20]

7:19:43 " Officer Smith takes Zimmerman into custody.

7:25+ " Sanford police take a photo of George Zimmerman in a squad car.

7:30 " Trayvon Martin pronounced dead at the scene by paramedic. (Which, BTW, means he was dead dead. We don't call trauma codes without good reason. I haven't found a report of specifically where the shot entered, but it was the chest, so I'm thinking L-side of chest, right @ heart)

7:40 " Sanford Fire Department treats Zimmerman for his injuries.

7:52 " Zimmerman's arrival at police station recorded on video.

10:30 " Martin's father and his fiancee return to the townhome, realize he is missing, are concerned, but think he may be with a cousin.

Approximately 1:00 AM " Zimmerman released (duration described as "five hours").

Jury:

Jury composed of 6 women. Florida only requires 12 for capital crimes. Prosecution AND defense chose members of jury. Jury found it credible that TM attacked first and was on top of GZ on ground. Ruled self-defense because TM did not have right to initiate violence even if he didn't like what GZ was doing, and GZ was not shown to be an imminent threat until altercation happened. If TM initiated violence, GZ justified in shoot. If GZ initiated violence, manslaughter would have been appropriate. Some jurors thought GZ shouldn't have been in situation at all, however, ruled in accordance with their understanding of the law, which was that if TM intiiated violence, that he got shot was unfortunate but in keeping with self-defense principles.

Does anyone contest any of this, or have more credible evidence to add?

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

And there are still people spouting off statements like "GZ was 60 pounds heavier than TM", or "We know TM was being chased down by a man with a drawn gun".

I just thought it would be beneficial to have the actual things we do know listed.

I just think we need to put it to rest. Not you in particular, but honestly. Let's let Trayvon finally rest in peace and not use the tragic incident as a case of martyrdom: for either Zimmerman or Martin.

Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.
- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus

And there are still people spouting off statements like "GZ was 60 pounds heavier than TM", or "We know TM was being chased down by a man with a drawn gun".

I just thought it would be beneficial to have the actual things we do know listed.

I just think we need to put it to rest. Not you in particular, but honestly. Let's let Trayvon finally rest in peace and not use the tragic incident as a case of martyrdom: for either Zimmerman or Martin.

While I understand the sentiment, at the same time, there are those who are going to walk away with a wildly inaccurate picture of events. They may "let it rest", but it's going to color their worldview, whether they think TM was proven to be actively breaking into houses, or they think that GZ was proven to be a murderous vigilante.

Also, cases like this, I think can move certain dialogues forward...so long as we aren't all arguing from utterly different positions like, for instance, talking about SYG in a case that didn't involve it.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 7/19/2013 1:15:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:Even now, there are still some folks on here who seem unaware of the actual details of a case they have an opinion on. I figured it might be worth listing the facts/events/etc. as we know them.

This is a great, detailed list. I just want to add some notes to it:

1) TM's disciplinary problems all occurred within 6 months of the shooting. Before then he was not noted for any problems. He has never been arrested.

2) The overall distance round-trip from the 7-11 to TM's house is 1.6 miles, about a 30-40 minute walk. Yet, we know that it took him well over 1/2 hour to make just one leg of that trip, from the 7-11 to where Zimmerman spotted him. This suggests he was doing more than just buying snacks, exactly what no one knows.

3) "...it should be noted that if he thought he was being followed, he may not have wanted to show where he lived."

We know for a fact he thought he was being followed...this is not a hypothetical. If you're followed by a stranger, common sense tells you that leading this stranger to your house is undesirable.

4) "GZ claims he was heading back to his car, and only got out to give precise location and see if he could see the person he deemed suspicious since he had lost sight of him."

I'm not sure where you're getting this. This was not evident in the dispatcher call.

5) We know GZ was on prescribed medication the day of the shooting, specifically Librax and Temazepam, the side effects of both leading to dizziness and drowsiness among a plethora of other issues.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

I just think we need to put it to rest. Not you in particular, but honestly. Let's let Trayvon finally rest in peace and not use the tragic incident as a case of martyrdom: for either Zimmerman or Martin.

CNN homepage headline, in gigantic size font:

OBAMA: 'MARTIN COULD HAVE BEEN ME'

---

This has been going on for weeks now...this story has gripped CNN to a greater extent than Sandy Hook.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

1) TM's disciplinary problems all occurred within 6 months of the shooting. Before then he was not noted for any problems. He has never been arrested.

Good points.

2) The overall distance round-trip from the 7-11 to TM's house is 1.6 miles, about a 30-40 minute walk. Yet, we know that it took him well over 1/2 hour to make just one leg of that trip, from the 7-11 to where Zimmerman spotted him. This suggests he was doing more than just buying snacks, exactly what no one knows.

I'm not sure what it suggests, though the timeline is relevant.

3) "...it should be noted that if he thought he was being followed, he may not have wanted to show where he lived."

We know for a fact he thought he was being followed...this is not a hypothetical. If you're followed by a stranger, common sense tells you that leading this stranger to your house is undesirable.

Yeah. Should read "it should be noted that SINCE he thought he was being followed, he may not have wanted to show where he lived."

4) "GZ claims he was heading back to his car, and only got out to give precise location and see if he could see the person he deemed suspicious since he had lost sight of him."

I'm not sure where you're getting this. This was not evident in the dispatcher call.

Chlordiazepoxide is a benzodizepine (Diazepam is Valium, so it's that class for those who don't know). It's an anti-anxiety medication, in IBS they think it helps calm down folks whose IBS is irritated by anxiety.

Clidinium bromide is a synthetic quaternary ammonium antimuscarinic. It's a subclass within the anticholinergics. For IBS it decreases gastrointestinal motility.

Temazepam:

Another benzodiazepine, probably to go along with the IBS (and possibly anxiety).

Drugs are legal (and I'm assuming legally prescribed). Both were probably "impaired" to the same amount, though that amount was likely negligible. Main difference is one's legality.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

1. The actual killing (shooting of the gun) must have been in self defense, for the sole reason that a bullet hole was not found on the ground. If Zimmerman was on top, then the bullet would have impacted into the ground, which it didn't. Unless you are a trained fighter, the person on top is always the agressor at that moment and is in a position of power. Nevertheless, if GZ was the aggressor, then simply claiming self defense at that moment is not sufficient proof for overall innocence.

2. Witnesses to the event were almost unanimous in the assertion that Zimmerman was on top. Generally, fights don't last long enough for a person to be on the ground (GZ), get on top, and then get on the ground again before shooting, especially if a gun is involved. There were a couple of girls who recounted an entirely different story, but that is not compatible with either Jeantel's testimony.

3. The crux on the case resides on whether Jeantel's or GZ's testimony was correct. If it was the former, then Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor and vice versa if the latter is true.

A few questions to anybody that might know:

1. Was there any damage to TM's phone?

2. Has there been any verification from a phone company that TM's phone call took place?

3. Has Jeantel been put under any lie detector tests?

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

At 7/19/2013 5:50:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:After reviewing the evidence, a few inferences can be made:

1. The actual killing (shooting of the gun) must have been in self defense, for the sole reason that a bullet hole was not found on the ground. If Zimmerman was on top, then the bullet would have impacted into the ground, which it didn't. Unless you are a trained fighter, the person on top is always the agressor at that moment and is in a position of power. Nevertheless, if GZ was the aggressor, then simply claiming self defense at that moment is not sufficient proof for overall innocence.

2. Witnesses to the event were almost unanimous in the assertion that Zimmerman was on top.

No, they weren't. I believe it was around 50/50, though I'd welcome a correction.

Generally, fights don't last long enough for a person to be on the ground (GZ), get on top, and then get on the ground again before shooting, especially if a gun is involved. There were a couple of girls who recounted an entirely different story, but that is not compatible with either Jeantel's testimony.

3. The crux on the case resides on whether Jeantel's or GZ's testimony was correct. If it was the former, then Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor and vice versa if the latter is true.

Which aspect of Jeanel's testimony are you talking about?

A few questions to anybody that might know:

1. Was there any damage to TM's phone?

I don't believe that's been noted.

2. Has there been any verification from a phone company that TM's phone call took place?

Yes, I believe phone records have been seen.

3. Has Jeantel been put under any lie detector tests?

Not to my knowledge.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 7/19/2013 5:50:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:After reviewing the evidence, a few inferences can be made:

1. The actual killing (shooting of the gun) must have been in self defense, for the sole reason that a bullet hole was not found on the ground. If Zimmerman was on top, then the bullet would have impacted into the ground, which it didn't. Unless you are a trained fighter, the person on top is always the agressor at that moment and is in a position of power. Nevertheless, if GZ was the aggressor, then simply claiming self defense at that moment is not sufficient proof for overall innocence.

2. Witnesses to the event were almost unanimous in the assertion that Zimmerman was on top.

No, they weren't. I believe it was around 50/50, though I'd welcome a correction.

Under "Witness Accounts," the only two people who mentioned somebody on top of somebody all stated that Martin was on top. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Generally, fights don't last long enough for a person to be on the ground (GZ), get on top, and then get on the ground again before shooting, especially if a gun is involved. There were a couple of girls who recounted an entirely different story, but that is not compatible with either Jeantel's testimony.

3. The crux on the case resides on whether Jeantel's or GZ's testimony was correct. If it was the former, then Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor and vice versa if the latter is true.

Which aspect of Jeanel's testimony are you talking about?

"She said that Martin told her that a man was watching him from his vehicle while talking on the phone before the man started following Martin. Martin told his friend at one point that he had lost the man but the man suddenly appeared again.[142][143][144] The friend, originally known only as "Witness 8", said that she told Martin to run to the townhouse where he was staying with his father and the father's girlfriend.[143] She then heard Martin say, "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding, "What are you doing around here?" She said that she heard the sound of pushing before the phone went dead"

A few questions to anybody that might know:

1. Was there any damage to TM's phone?

I don't believe that's been noted

If, as according to the girl, Zimmerman attacked TM first while he was holding his phone, there most definitely would be damage from it being dropped, since it went "dead," and nobody would take the time to voluntarily turn off their phone if being attacked. For a phone to go dead without being turned off, EXTENSIVE damage must be done.

2. Has there been any verification from a phone company that TM's phone call took place?

Yes, I believe phone records have been seen.

Do you have the source for this?

3. Has Jeantel been put under any lie detector tests?

Not to my knowledge.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

At 7/19/2013 5:50:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:After reviewing the evidence, a few inferences can be made:

1. The actual killing (shooting of the gun) must have been in self defense, for the sole reason that a bullet hole was not found on the ground. If Zimmerman was on top, then the bullet would have impacted into the ground, which it didn't. Unless you are a trained fighter, the person on top is always the agressor at that moment and is in a position of power. Nevertheless, if GZ was the aggressor, then simply claiming self defense at that moment is not sufficient proof for overall innocence.

2. Witnesses to the event were almost unanimous in the assertion that Zimmerman was on top.

No, they weren't. I believe it was around 50/50, though I'd welcome a correction.

Under "Witness Accounts," the only two people who mentioned somebody on top of somebody all stated that Martin was on top. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Recordings of eight calls to the police made on the night of the shooting were released by the Sanford police on March 17, 2012.

A witness to the confrontation just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman

A 13-year-old boy walking his dog saw a man on the ground shortly before the shooting and identified him as wearing red.

On March 29, 2012, an eyewitness referred to as a male said that he saw two men on the ground scuffling, then heard the shooting, and saw Zimmerman walk away with no blood on him.[138][139] The witness later appeared on CNN AC360 referred to as a female, giving more details on her account. She pointed out that she heard an argument between a younger and an older voice. During the time that she witnessed the incident, the scuffling happened on the grass. She said that the larger man, who walked away after the gunshot, was on top and that it was too dark to see blood on his face.

2:1

One eye-witness statement given the night of the shooting describes "a black male, wearing a dark colored 'hoodie' on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help."

So not fifty-fifty, seems to be 3:1.

3. The crux on the case resides on whether Jeantel's or GZ's testimony was correct. If it was the former, then Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor and vice versa if the latter is true.

Which aspect of Jeanel's testimony are you talking about?

"She said that Martin told her that a man was watching him from his vehicle while talking on the phone before the man started following Martin. Martin told his friend at one point that he had lost the man but the man suddenly appeared again. The friend, originally known only as "Witness 8", said that she told Martin to run to the townhouse where he was staying with his father and the father's girlfriend. She then heard Martin say, "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding, "What are you doing around here?" She said that she heard the sound of pushing before the phone went dead"

Why would that indicate Zimmerman was the aggressor? If her testimony is correct, TM initiated the dialogue, but that's about all we get from it.

1. Was there any damage to TM's phone?

I don't believe that's been noted

If, as according to the girl, Zimmerman attacked TM first while he was holding his phone,

That's not what that testimony indicated.

there most definitely would be damage from it being dropped, since it went "dead," and nobody would take the time to voluntarily turn off their phone if being attacked. For a phone to go dead without being turned off, EXTENSIVE damage must be done.

Phone went dead I interpreted as in LINE went dead; I don't think the phone was shut off per se. At least part of the scuffle happened on grass; if the phone was dropped on grass, it might have just hung up on her.

At 7/19/2013 5:50:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:After reviewing the evidence, a few inferences can be made:

1. The actual killing (shooting of the gun) must have been in self defense, for the sole reason that a bullet hole was not found on the ground. If Zimmerman was on top, then the bullet would have impacted into the ground, which it didn't. Unless you are a trained fighter, the person on top is always the agressor at that moment and is in a position of power. Nevertheless, if GZ was the aggressor, then simply claiming self defense at that moment is not sufficient proof for overall innocence.

2. Witnesses to the event were almost unanimous in the assertion that Zimmerman was on top.

No, they weren't. I believe it was around 50/50, though I'd welcome a correction.

Under "Witness Accounts," the only two people who mentioned somebody on top of somebody all stated that Martin was on top. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Recordings of eight calls to the police made on the night of the shooting were released by the Sanford police on March 17, 2012.

A witness to the confrontation just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman

A 13-year-old boy walking his dog saw a man on the ground shortly before the shooting and identified him as wearing red.

On March 29, 2012, an eyewitness referred to as a male said that he saw two men on the ground scuffling, then heard the shooting, and saw Zimmerman walk away with no blood on him.[138][139] The witness later appeared on CNN AC360 referred to as a female, giving more details on her account. She pointed out that she heard an argument between a younger and an older voice. During the time that she witnessed the incident, the scuffling happened on the grass. She said that the larger man, who walked away after the gunshot, was on top and that it was too dark to see blood on his face.

2:1

One eye-witness statement given the night of the shooting describes "a black male, wearing a dark colored 'hoodie' on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help."

So not fifty-fifty, seems to be 3:1.

Fair enough. Unless I'm mistaken, in court, if 75% of the witnesses say the same thing, unless discredited, it is accepted as true. Therefore, my inference still stands.

3. The crux on the case resides on whether Jeantel's or GZ's testimony was correct. If it was the former, then Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor and vice versa if the latter is true.

Which aspect of Jeanel's testimony are you talking about?

"She said that Martin told her that a man was watching him from his vehicle while talking on the phone before the man started following Martin. Martin told his friend at one point that he had lost the man but the man suddenly appeared again. The friend, originally known only as "Witness 8", said that she told Martin to run to the townhouse where he was staying with his father and the father's girlfriend. She then heard Martin say, "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding, "What are you doing around here?" She said that she heard the sound of pushing before the phone went dead"

Why would that indicate Zimmerman was the aggressor? If her testimony is correct, TM initiated the dialogue, but that's about all we get from it.

From your source:

"Jeantel said it became apparent that the man had reappeared. "Why are you following me for?" she said she heard Trayvon say, and a "heavy-breathed man" replied, "What are you doing around here?" She said she heard Trayvon say, "Get off, get off," before hearing the "bump" of Trayvon"s phone headset as it hit the ground, and disconnected."

There is no reason why an aggressor would be saying and repeating "get off."This seems to quite clearly imply that Zimmerman threw the first attack.

1. Was there any damage to TM's phone?

I don't believe that's been noted

If, as according to the girl, Zimmerman attacked TM first while he was holding his phone,

That's not what that testimony indicated.

there most definitely would be damage from it being dropped, since it went "dead," and nobody would take the time to voluntarily turn off their phone if being attacked. For a phone to go dead without being turned off, EXTENSIVE damage must be done.

Phone went dead I interpreted as in LINE went dead; I don't think the phone was shut off per se. At least part of the scuffle happened on grass; if the phone was dropped on grass, it might have just hung up on her.

Again, directly from your source, it clearly implies that the line was disconnected due to the scuffle. Nobody screaming "get off" would take the time to voluntarily shut off their phone. Therefore, the line was disconnected because of the fight, presumably due to dmg to the phone. If there was no dmg, then Jeantel was lying. Also, I've dropped my phone a lot of times- it takes a HUGE amount of force to make it break, thus implying extensive dmg.

2. Has there been any verification from a phone company that TM's phone call took place?

Honestly, anybody who is saying that Zimmerman is guilty or not guilty is bullsh!tting themselves. Without a proper examination of the crime scene with Sherlock Holmes, it cannot be said who was guilty.

However, with such uncertainty, it stands to reason that Zimmerman was acquitted. Nevertheless, that does not speak to his innocence.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

2) The overall distance round-trip from the 7-11 to TM's house is 1.6 miles, about a 30-40 minute walk. Yet, we know that it took him well over 1/2 hour to make just one leg of that trip, from the 7-11 to where Zimmerman spotted him. This suggests he was doing more than just buying snacks, exactly what no one knows.

This isn't "known evidence" but speculation. Assuming that we said "half an hour" because "an hour" would have been factually false (and we'd be picking the higher numbers if possible for accuracy if nothing else), then the fact that he took so long could be attributable to anything. It took me 7 minutes yesterday to get to the train station from my house, for example, but yesterday it took me around 20 minutes. The seven minutes I rushed, the 20 minutes I took my time and had a chat with an old classmate I ran into. I could've instead sat down at a bench nearby and just relaxed. Anything could happen here, from me murdering a hooker to feeding the birds with bread. Claiming anything specific out of "it took him longer than normal", including that he did something other than take the most efficient route to and from the shop, is blind conjecture.

(Or at least that's what I'd run if I were a lawyer here. It is really just conjecture though. You may see it as an obvious deduction, but I really doubt it, and i cannot be directly backed up by empirical evidence in the same way that the claim "he took longer than he may have been expected to, if he took the most direct route".)

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

2) The overall distance round-trip from the 7-11 to TM's house is 1.6 miles, about a 30-40 minute walk. Yet, we know that it took him well over 1/2 hour to make just one leg of that trip, from the 7-11 to where Zimmerman spotted him. This suggests he was doing more than just buying snacks, exactly what no one knows.

This isn't "known evidence" but speculation. [then a bunch of speculation]

Please look at the underlined again one more time and try telling me again that I am speculating.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

2) The overall distance round-trip from the 7-11 to TM's house is 1.6 miles, about a 30-40 minute walk. Yet, we know that it took him well over 1/2 hour to make just one leg of that trip, from the 7-11 to where Zimmerman spotted him. This suggests he was doing more than just buying snacks, exactly what no one knows.

This isn't "known evidence" but speculation. [then a bunch of speculation]

Please look at the underlined again one more time and try telling me again that I am speculating.

Firstly, my alternative speculation is that: alternatives. To claim he was doing something "more than buying snacks" which is the most important aspect of what I was driving at being speculative, is certainly speculative. He could have been taken any route home, or just walking very slowly.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

2) The overall distance round-trip from the 7-11 to TM's house is 1.6 miles, about a 30-40 minute walk. Yet, we know that it took him well over 1/2 hour to make just one leg of that trip, from the 7-11 to where Zimmerman spotted him. This suggests he was doing more than just buying snacks, exactly what no one knows.

This isn't "known evidence" but speculation. [then a bunch of speculation]

Please look at the underlined again one more time and try telling me again that I am speculating.

Firstly, my alternative speculation is that: alternatives. To claim he was doing something "more than buying snacks" which is the most important aspect of what I was driving at being speculative, is certainly speculative. He could have been taken any route home, or just walking very slowly.

I see what you're getting at. My point was that because it took so long, it leaves the door open to speculation, which is not speculation. Had he walked at the expected speed and etc, there would be much less room for speculation as to what TM did between the times he was spotted by the 7-11 and Zimmerman.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

2) The overall distance round-trip from the 7-11 to TM's house is 1.6 miles, about a 30-40 minute walk. Yet, we know that it took him well over 1/2 hour to make just one leg of that trip, from the 7-11 to where Zimmerman spotted him. This suggests he was doing more than just buying snacks, exactly what no one knows.

This isn't "known evidence" but speculation. [then a bunch of speculation]

Please look at the underlined again one more time and try telling me again that I am speculating.

Firstly, my alternative speculation is that: alternatives. To claim he was doing something "more than buying snacks" which is the most important aspect of what I was driving at being speculative, is certainly speculative. He could have been taken any route home, or just walking very slowly.

I see what you're getting at. My point was that because it took so long, it leaves the door open to speculation, which is not speculation. Had he walked at the expected speed and etc, there would be much less room for speculation as to what TM did between the times he was spotted by the 7-11 and Zimmerman.

I don't see how that has any relevance to the case whatsoever. Even if TM was a cocaine mob boss, that would be irrelevant to who threw the first punch.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

2) The overall distance round-trip from the 7-11 to TM's house is 1.6 miles, about a 30-40 minute walk. Yet, we know that it took him well over 1/2 hour to make just one leg of that trip, from the 7-11 to where Zimmerman spotted him. This suggests he was doing more than just buying snacks, exactly what no one knows.

This isn't "known evidence" but speculation. [then a bunch of speculation]

Please look at the underlined again one more time and try telling me again that I am speculating.

Firstly, my alternative speculation is that: alternatives. To claim he was doing something "more than buying snacks" which is the most important aspect of what I was driving at being speculative, is certainly speculative. He could have been taken any route home, or just walking very slowly.

I see what you're getting at. My point was that because it took so long, it leaves the door open to speculation, which is not speculation. Had he walked at the expected speed and etc, there would be much less room for speculation as to what TM did between the times he was spotted by the 7-11 and Zimmerman.

I don't see how that has any relevance to the case whatsoever. Even if TM was a cocaine mob boss, that would be irrelevant to who threw the first punch.

It would help to establish the character of TM as someone who is accustomed to engaging in unlawful behavior...such as throwing the first punch in a fight, which can be constituted as assault if such an action was unwarranted. It would increase the probability that TM was unwarranted in his actions that night, quite possibly beyond a reasonable doubt.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

The entire event of what happened is speculation based upon fact. We are simply establishing the facts. So discussing where we can speculate is not hugely relevant. Moreover, you made it out - or I took it as - that there is no speculation in that martin did something in that half hour period. We may not know what he did, but it was not just him walking to or from the shops. Which is speculation, evidently.

I'd also add that I agree with the establishment of character, but I question more the weight of this establishment especially when neither side are saints.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

2) The overall distance round-trip from the 7-11 to TM's house is 1.6 miles, about a 30-40 minute walk. Yet, we know that it took him well over 1/2 hour to make just one leg of that trip, from the 7-11 to where Zimmerman spotted him. This suggests he was doing more than just buying snacks, exactly what no one knows.

This isn't "known evidence" but speculation. [then a bunch of speculation]

Please look at the underlined again one more time and try telling me again that I am speculating.

Firstly, my alternative speculation is that: alternatives. To claim he was doing something "more than buying snacks" which is the most important aspect of what I was driving at being speculative, is certainly speculative. He could have been taken any route home, or just walking very slowly.

I see what you're getting at. My point was that because it took so long, it leaves the door open to speculation, which is not speculation. Had he walked at the expected speed and etc, there would be much less room for speculation as to what TM did between the times he was spotted by the 7-11 and Zimmerman.

I don't see how that has any relevance to the case whatsoever. Even if TM was a cocaine mob boss, that would be irrelevant to who threw the first punch.

It would help to establish the character of TM as someone who is accustomed to engaging in unlawful behavior...such as throwing the first punch in a fight, which can be constituted as assault if such an action was unwarranted. It would increase the probability that TM was unwarranted in his actions that night, quite possibly beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now you're dealing with probabilities here, and probabilities, especially undefined probabilities (e.g. He may have a larger chance of initiating conflict) are not particularly strong in the court of law, and they most definitely cannot establish "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Who knows how large the percentage increase of Trayvon's likeliness to assault would be if he was X or Y? 5%? 10? 15? It is completely arbitrary.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

At 7/19/2013 1:15:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:Even now, there are still some folks on here who seem unaware of the actual details of a case they have an opinion on. I figured it might be worth listing the facts/events/etc. as we know them...

A pithy version of facts, alleged facts, and irrelevancies don't add up to the truth of the case.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

At 7/19/2013 1:15:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:Even now, there are still some folks on here who seem unaware of the actual details of a case they have an opinion on. I figured it might be worth listing the facts/events/etc. as we know them...

A pithy version of facts, alleged facts, and irrelevancies don't add up to the truth of the case.

Charles, I'm curious. And please don't take this as an argument, but I really feel like I need to know: did you watch the trial?

Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.
- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus

At 7/19/2013 1:15:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:Even now, there are still some folks on here who seem unaware of the actual details of a case they have an opinion on. I figured it might be worth listing the facts/events/etc. as we know them...

A pithy version of facts, alleged facts, and irrelevancies don't add up to the truth of the case.

Actually, if we knew all the facts, it would add up to the truth of the case. Of course, we don't. Knowing less than all the facts, showing what we know will show as much of the truth as we can actually assert of the case.

Do you have a point, or were you hoping to post another screed about how this is all about racism?

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

Fair enough. Unless I'm mistaken, in court, if 75% of the witnesses say the same thing, unless discredited, it is accepted as true. Therefore, my inference still stands.

You are mistaken. Witness credibility is ALWAYS up to the jury; they are perfectly allowed to say "The other 3s credibility was not as strong as the 1 who saw the opposite".

While I do agree the evidence seems to be that TM was on top of GZ, we cannot assert it as fact.

Also, your original inference was the opposite of what it seems to be now; was the original one a typo?

"Jeantel said it became apparent that the man had reappeared. "Why are you following me for?" she said she heard Trayvon say, and a "heavy-breathed man" replied, "What are you doing around here?" She said she heard Trayvon say, "Get off, get off," before hearing the "bump" of Trayvon"s phone headset as it hit the ground, and disconnected."

There is no reason why an aggressor would be saying and repeating "get off."

Not true, actually. Imagine if TM had assaulted GZ, and GZ had started fighting back. I could easily imagine that TM might then say that. While it may lead one to think that, if her testimony was true, TM was unlikely to be the aggressor, it's not iron-clad, it's an inference.

Also she was a TERRIBLE witness, but that's editorial.

This seems to quite clearly imply that Zimmerman threw the first attack.

Imply=State. I'm not saying it's an unreasonable implication based on her testimony, but we can't assert it as true.

Again, directly from your source, it clearly implies that the line was disconnected due to the scuffle. Nobody screaming "get off" would take the time to voluntarily shut off their phone. Therefore, the line was disconnected because of the fight, presumably due to dmg to the phone.

We have no evidence of damage to the phone. Do you own a smartphone? They can disconnect for a host of reasons. In light of an utter absence of evidence, drawing conclusions based on assumptions seems unfair. There MAY have been damage; if you find a source, I'd love to see it.

If there was no dmg, then Jeantel was lying. Also, I've dropped my phone a lot of times- it takes a HUGE amount of force to make it break, thus implying extensive dmg.

ONLY if the phone disconnected due to damage, which no source has said (and, considering the prosecution recovered a BUNCH of data and photos off of it, "extensive damage" seems unlikely).

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!